For reviewers

Main points to consider

Expose in each option the explanations it deems appropriate:

1. The criteria relating to content that are included in the author's instruction are met (especially those referred to in the main text section).
2. No evidence of fraud or plagiarism is detected in the assessed data.

Rate the following elements of the article (about 10 points each item):

  • Homepage. The title and summary are clear and representative of the experimental work.
  • The article is well organized, so that both the text in general and each sentence that constitutes follow a line of well-linked arguments and ideas.
  • Material and methods. The minimum requirements of scientific research are fulfil.
  • Results. All are sufficient to explain the initial hypotheses or objectives and the structure is correct and clear.
  • Quotes. All authors cited in the text are included in the bibliography and vice versa. Completely are not too numerous or deficient.
  • Bibliography. It is of quality and has been written according to Vancouver standards.
  • There are no errors related to names, symbols and nomenclature.
  • Additional elements (images, tables, figures, etc.). All are self-explanatory, sufficient and the arrangement is correct in the manuscript body.
  • Limitations of experimental work. The research should not have limitations that the authors have not considered. If so, the reviewer must indicate them in the General Comments.
  • Relevance and originality. Both the justification, objectives and results have sufficient relevance and originality to be published.


Minimal corrections.- These are small mistakes that can be solved quickly and easily, and that do not significantly interfere with the editing process.

Content corrections. - Involve the performance of relevant modifications in the text before the manuscript continues with the editorial process, in case will be accepted by the author. The reviewer must justify such modifications in the General Comments section.

Major corrections. - When the number of observations indicated is such that the article is returned in full without the possibility of editing. The author's decision to rewrite the document before resubmitting it.